NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 6607139" data-attributes="member: 6786252">Golemancers are more akin to necromancer hoards or a land druid pixie swarm.  Multiple creatures, not single unbeatable champions.   Even then, its highly clunky to do a half-caster with leveling pet - half casters want to use their actions for attacks, bonus actions for spells (or vice versa), and pets try to leech off your action economy.    Half-caster also implies that the buffing-potion master as well as the explosive specialist will be making mundane attacks.   That's simply poor design, favoring a bow caster or rune hammer, and trying to shoehorn the others into that kind.   Look at the cleric - some are pure casters, some are spell-maces, some use cantrips to make sticks to hit you with.   And yet, they didn't.  The bard started off as half-, but it was decided to be too clunky for future development, and too confusing and complicated for the Lore bard to work well.  The same reasoning applies here. So... yeah.   Granting advantage or resistance is just one or two abilities/spells.   Hit point recovery, temporary hit points need scaling.   SOME artificers need weapon damage scaling, some need "spell" damage scaling. Outside of the warlock (whom we should not mimic), cantrips are substandard damage, not meant to be the main source of your attack.   If you're expecting cantrips to make up a notable part of your attacks, then we should have full casting and be consistent with everyone else.And I still submit that assuming everyone is doing the whole magic-weapon-attack thing is detrimental to the class design. Not targeting you specifically, Ezekiel, but I think its kinda relevant.    No matter how people feel about the issue, any 5e Artificer class is going to need to take both the 3e and 4e incarnations into account.   You can't ignore either.  Or, perhaps, you have to ignore both, depending on your point of view.</blockquote>

Verification